<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: James Burnham and The Struggle for the World</title>
	<atom:link href="http://collectedmiscellany.com/2003/01/james-burnham-and-the-struggle-for-the-world/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://collectedmiscellany.com/2003/01/james-burnham-and-the-struggle-for-the-world/</link>
	<description>seemingly random thoughts on books</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:27:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeet Heer</title>
		<link>http://collectedmiscellany.com/2003/01/james-burnham-and-the-struggle-for-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeet Heer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2003 21:35:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://collectedmiscellany.com/2003/01/james-burnham-and-the-struggle-for-the-world/#comment-47</guid>
		<description>Having read most of Burnham&#8217;s books and essays, I would have to agree with the idea that he was wrong about almost everything. Here is a short run-down of his major mistakes:

1) During the early days of World War II, he predicted that Germany would easily defeat England.

2) In the early stages of the Cold War he advocated the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against the Russians &#8211; which would have started World War III and been a moral disaster.

3) He refused to recognize the reality of the Sino-Soviet split in the late 1950s and in fact argued for years afterwards that the Chinese and Russians were still closely allied, despite a mountain of evidence against this fact. This error was rooted in his fundamental belief that communists leaders were ideologues first and nationalists second, which was a misreading of reality.

4) He vastly over-estimated the power of the Soviet Union and China, arguing that the West was doomed in the 1960s when in fact the United States already enjoyed a huge economic advantage over communism.

5) He was a huge fan of dictators all over the world, in places as far a field as Iran, Spain, Greece, Indonesia and Chile. The policy he advocated led to the US supporting murderous regimes and losing the respect of freedom loving people all over the world. A large part of the current tide of global anti-Americanism can be traced back to the policies Burnham supported.

6)   He pined after European imperialism long after it had lost any logic or rational. He thought that people in Asia and Africa were incapable of governing themselves, and ignored the crimes against humanity committed by colonial regimes like South Africa, Rhodesia and French Algeria.

7) He advocated the use of biological and chemical weapons in Viet Nam, the sort of thing that gives Saddam Hussein a bad name.

In summary, I think Burnham was one of the most repellent figures in American intellectual history, and should best be regarded as a case study of how not to think about the world.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having read most of Burnham&#8217;s books and essays, I would have to agree with the idea that he was wrong about almost everything. Here is a short run-down of his major mistakes:</p>
<p>1) During the early days of World War II, he predicted that Germany would easily defeat England.</p>
<p>2) In the early stages of the Cold War he advocated the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against the Russians &#8211; which would have started World War III and been a moral disaster.</p>
<p>3) He refused to recognize the reality of the Sino-Soviet split in the late 1950s and in fact argued for years afterwards that the Chinese and Russians were still closely allied, despite a mountain of evidence against this fact. This error was rooted in his fundamental belief that communists leaders were ideologues first and nationalists second, which was a misreading of reality.</p>
<p>4) He vastly over-estimated the power of the Soviet Union and China, arguing that the West was doomed in the 1960s when in fact the United States already enjoyed a huge economic advantage over communism.</p>
<p>5) He was a huge fan of dictators all over the world, in places as far a field as Iran, Spain, Greece, Indonesia and Chile. The policy he advocated led to the US supporting murderous regimes and losing the respect of freedom loving people all over the world. A large part of the current tide of global anti-Americanism can be traced back to the policies Burnham supported.</p>
<p>6)   He pined after European imperialism long after it had lost any logic or rational. He thought that people in Asia and Africa were incapable of governing themselves, and ignored the crimes against humanity committed by colonial regimes like South Africa, Rhodesia and French Algeria.</p>
<p>7) He advocated the use of biological and chemical weapons in Viet Nam, the sort of thing that gives Saddam Hussein a bad name.</p>
<p>In summary, I think Burnham was one of the most repellent figures in American intellectual history, and should best be regarded as a case study of how not to think about the world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Cella</title>
		<link>http://collectedmiscellany.com/2003/01/james-burnham-and-the-struggle-for-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-46</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Cella</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:47:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://collectedmiscellany.com/2003/01/james-burnham-and-the-struggle-for-the-world/#comment-46</guid>
		<description>Lind is surely a fool, but occasionally he stumbles, backwards almost, onto something near the truth. I think, for example, it might be a fair thing to say that Burnham would be less than impressed by many of our neoconservatives. Relatedly, he would probably be decried facilely as a stale old paleoconservative simply because he would have no patience whatever for our debacle of an immigration policy. &quot;Buchananite&quot; or &quot;nativist&quot; would not be far from his detractors&#039; lips.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lind is surely a fool, but occasionally he stumbles, backwards almost, onto something near the truth. I think, for example, it might be a fair thing to say that Burnham would be less than impressed by many of our neoconservatives. Relatedly, he would probably be decried facilely as a stale old paleoconservative simply because he would have no patience whatever for our debacle of an immigration policy. &#8220;Buchananite&#8221; or &#8220;nativist&#8221; would not be far from his detractors&#8217; lips.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

